[OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi,
some time in the next months we're likely to start phase 4 of the
license change, where those who have not agreed to the new CT will be
unable to continue editing.
Someone who has not yet agreed can still change their mind after that of
course.
Now I sense some uncertainty among mappers as to what phase 4 exactly
means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing
mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just
holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply
wanted to delay their decision until later.
On the other hand I know that some mappers cannot wait for phase 4 to
begin because that's when they intend to systematically delete and
re-map everything that has not yet been relicensed.
Any misunderstanding in this area will lead to friction: mapper A
thought he still had time to reconsider; but mapper B goes ahead and
deletes/re-maps A's work (possibly with less precision or other things
that A doesn't like). A, who intended to stay with OSM but was just
playing a little game of stubbornness and protest, is infuriated ("how
could you throw away my super precise mapping!"), and B has wasted his time.
Then again, had B waited until one day before the switch to phase 5, and
had A decided not to relicense after all, then there would be a white
spot on the map which isn't too desirable either.
I think that we should come up with a clear message to mappers that we
issue AT THE SAME TIME as we announce phase 4. That message could either be:
"Do not delete and re-map anything before we go to phase 5 in 2012. We
know this will lead to blank spots on the map but that's not too bad."
or
"Before you delete and re-map anything, contact the mapper who hasn't
yet agreed and whose data you are planning to re-map, and explain to him
what you're going to do."
or
"Do not delete and re-map anything before . We will send out a
message to everyone who has not agreed to the license change, and inform
them that after that date, mappers are likely to purge non-relicensed
data and that if they want their data to remain, they need to redecide
before that date."
or whatever.
I am not advocating one of these procedures over the other; it is just
important to me that everyone is on the same page. Because currently
people are not; some thing that they have until phase 5 to reconsider,
and some already have twitchy fingers and will start purging
non-relicensed data as soon as we say "phase 4". (Well some are already
purging non-relicensed data now but everybody advises against.)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
The problem I have is a bit different. Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace in some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these roads are now complete and open to the public. It would be pointless of me to add information to the nearmapped ways (E.G it's name) since it seems certain that these ways will be deleted from OSM. However it is critical that these roads appear on the map right now, so that emergency services have access to the most up-to-date information available. The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Once all the nearmap data has been removed then I would remove the layer tags. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Now I sense some uncertainty among mappers as to what phase 4 exactly > means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing > mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just > holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply > wanted to delay their decision until later. > Yes, there are a number of people who have declined to relicense as it is the only way available to formally voice ones disagreement with any of a) the new licence, b) the CT or c) the process. Nevertheless, they remain adamant supports and enthusiasts of OSM. Just that they happen to disagree with what is best for the project and without being able to see into the future it is pretty much impossible to say for sure which cause of action is the best for the project. So it is important to try and not alienate either side as much as possible. Phase 4 is critical in this respect, as it is the first time ones decision has actual consequences for mappers and starts locking users out of the project, some of whom have put a huge amount of effort into OSM to ensure it has become a success and deserve everyones respect. So it is bound to give bad blood and result in highly emotional debates. Frederik Ramm wrote: > > "Do not delete and re-map anything before . We will send out a > message to everyone who has not agreed to the license change, and inform > them that after that date, mappers are likely to purge non-relicensed > data and that if they want their data to remain, they need to redecide > before that date." > Out of the listed options, I would personally prefer this option most, as it imho leaves the most options open. However, rather than a specific date, I would advertise the "date" to be the time at which a critical mass is reached. I.e. when it becomes clear that sufficient data has successfully been relicensed that the damage due to data loss will be acceptable to the overall project. That then really is the point of no return at which one can start a graceful damage control by replacing no relicensable data. At that point I presume OSMF will decide on a formal date on which phase 5 will begin. In order to give all data users enough time to adapt to the new license and consider the consequences, I would expect OSMF to set this date at least a month or two in advance, which will then still give mappers a reasonable amount of time to start fixing up the holes that the relicensing process will produce in the data. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6441026.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Nick Hocking wrote: The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Well if you are prepared to do this work, and if it is clear that the other mapper doesn't support the license change, and if you think simply staying with the current status for a while is not an option (since you need to add road name), then I'd just delete the other person's data and replace it with yours. The map will not be worse for it, and the other mapper can hardly complain. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 21:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Nick Hocking wrote: >> >> The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of >> residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped >> ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for >> the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. > > Well if you are prepared to do this work, and if it is clear that the other > mapper doesn't support the license change, and if you think simply staying > with the current status for a while is not an option (since you need to add > road name), then I'd just delete the other person's data and replace it with > yours. The map will not be worse for it, and the other mapper can hardly > complain. He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data, so far I'm told the SES and other emergency services use their own GPS/mapping solutions. So unless he can backup his claims he's only going to be vandalising the map, and here you are cheering him along after you so carefully worded things earlier to try and prevent any kind of edit waring or map vandalisim. As others have pointed out, the best way to handle the change over would be to start a new database and copy data into it that is allowable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, John Smith wrote: He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > John Smith wrote: >> >> He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data > > I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a > questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of > data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no > reason to prefer the former. He made the same claim to talk-au without backing up his assertions when questions so his claims could be verified. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, John Smith wrote: He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. He made the same claim to talk-au without backing up his assertions when questions so his claims could be verified. Where the claim was made has no relevance for my assessment that it does not make a difference. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:48, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Where the claim was made has no relevance for my assessment that it does not > make a difference. As I said, you tried so hard to word thing to reduce the change of an edit war and now you are cheering some along to do the exact opposite, so I'd say it makes a lot of difference at this point in time. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Sadly I agree. Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:19, Nick Hocking wrote: > The problem I have is a bit different. > > Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace in > some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these roads are > now complete and open to the public. > > It would be pointless of me to add information to the nearmapped ways (E.G > it's name) since it seems certain that these ways will be deleted from OSM. > However it is critical that these roads appear on the map right now, so that > emergency services have access to the most up-to-date information available. > > The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of > residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, > make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the > moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. > Once all the nearmap data has been removed then I would remove the layer tags. > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply wanted to delay their decision until later. These have actively declined the license. What about all these mappers who can't be reached any more? Anonymous edits (uid=0)? I have some recent statistic of a comparably small community. For Thailand currently 31% of all contributors (that are still visible in the planet as last author) have not responded. Of these 162 mappers a quite large number of 41 (25%) has not contributed over the past two years. Quite likely they won't respond to the email ever. These edits sum up to 2,18 percent of the total nodes. I have the feeling that remapping this data has a lot less potential for a conflict than remapping data of a somewhat active contributor who recently declined but may change his mind. How to deal with these edits? What to advise in regard to abandoned accounts? My statistic only counts contributions in this small area. for more reliable figures the global "last edit date" would be needed. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
I am also very hesitant to have a specific date now and basically support Kai's concept. Mostly the date thing is caution, I would like to move to Phase 4 as soon as possible but think we can then take our time getting as much ODbL coverage as possible. It is also disparate situations. At one extreme is ripping out and not replacing data where there may be a delayed solution available. At the other extreme, there is a local mapper or mapping party fixing up their local area with content equal to or better than a contributor who has clearly and publicly stated that they have no intention of ever accepting. [BTW, we will certainly make a full dump available upon the Phase 4 switch-over] Since the unknowns and what-ifs are now falling away fast, I suggest we focus in on what critical mass is and do what we can do to achieve it. My initial criteria with some examples are: - We should have the numbers. ODbL coverage weighted by size of contribution is looking great [1] but we are not there yet. I would like to have done our best to reach the large number of previous small and lapsed contributors and had a response. This is just beginning to come in this weekend. This may have important impact on local mappers. - Local mappers and communities have had a chance to assess actual rather than hypothetical impact in small areas and regions. - Large-scale individual contributors who would like to accept the new terms but feel they can't for some reason have been helped where practical and possible. - Where a specific import or derivation issue exists, short or medium term possibilities have been exhausted. In Australia, we may get a straight yes/no answer from Nearmap on keeping current contributions. In the UK there is the ambiguous position of OS Streetview data. Champions for individual blank and yellow tagged entries in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue welcome. Mike [1] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png On 05/06/2011 03:23, Kai Krueger wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Now I sense some uncertainty among mappers as to what phase 4 exactly means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply wanted to delay their decision until later. Yes, there are a number of people who have declined to relicense as it is the only way available to formally voice ones disagreement with any of a) the new licence, b) the CT or c) the process. Nevertheless, they remain adamant supports and enthusiasts of OSM. Just that they happen to disagree with what is best for the project and without being able to see into the future it is pretty much impossible to say for sure which cause of action is the best for the project. So it is important to try and not alienate either side as much as possible. Phase 4 is critical in this respect, as it is the first time ones decision has actual consequences for mappers and starts locking users out of the project, some of whom have put a huge amount of effort into OSM to ensure it has become a success and deserve everyones respect. So it is bound to give bad blood and result in highly emotional debates. Frederik Ramm wrote: "Do not delete and re-map anything before. We will send out a message to everyone who has not agreed to the license change, and inform them that after that date, mappers are likely to purge non-relicensed data and that if they want their data to remain, they need to redecide before that date." Out of the listed options, I would personally prefer this option most, as it imho leaves the most options open. However, rather than a specific date, I would advertise the "date" to be the time at which a critical mass is reached. I.e. when it becomes clear that sufficient data has successfully been relicensed that the damage due to data loss will be acceptable to the overall project. That then really is the point of no return at which one can start a graceful damage control by replacing no relicensable data. At that point I presume OSMF will decide on a formal date on which phase 5 will begin. In order to give all data users enough time to adapt to the new license and consider the consequences, I would expect OSMF to set this date at least a month or two in advance, which will then still give mappers a reasonable amount of time to start fixing up the holes that the relicensing process will produce in the data. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6441026.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ lega
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
I don't think that edit wars to deliberately change the licence status of bits of map are the way forward - for either side. It's just as unacceptable from the pro-ODbL camp as from the pro-CC camp. However, I can understand that if mappers believe that large amounts of data will be deleted (which is a self-fulfilling prophecy to some extent) then they will want to recreate it. One way might be to create a second, 'ODbL-pure' database where there is full licence to rip out anything from contributors who don't support the ODbL change. Then if this version of the map becomes better than the current OSM it can replace it. Indeed, that could be a gradual changeover rather than a big bang. None of this reduces the need to reach out to all contributors, whichever side of the licensing debate they are on, and for all sides to find a constructive way forward rather than hardening positions and seeing who blinks first. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5-6-2011 2:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Any misunderstanding in this area will lead to friction: mapper A
thought he still had time to reconsider; but mapper B goes ahead and
deletes/re-maps A's work (possibly with less precision or other things
that A doesn't like). A, who intended to stay with OSM but was just
playing a little game of stubbornness and protest, is infuriated ("how
could you throw away my super precise mapping!"), and B has wasted his
time.
If that is your attitude towards the license change, then I really do
not understand why all these phases are necessary. If the object of the
game is to change the license regardless of anything, then just change
it already.
Maarten
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Michael Collinson wrote: I am also very hesitant to have a specific date now and basically support Kai's concept. Mostly the date thing is caution, I would like to move to Phase 4 as soon as possible but think we can then take our time getting as much ODbL coverage as possible. That's what I think too. However, even if you are reluctant to name a date for it, this would still technically introduce a "phase 4-II"; that is the point at which you announce "ok we have critical mass, please rip out everything that isn't relicensed *now*". It would mean that we should continue to tell mappers not to start replacing non-relicensed data even after phase 4 comes into effect, right? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi,
Maarten Deen wrote:
Any misunderstanding in this area will lead to friction: mapper A
thought he still had time to reconsider; but mapper B goes ahead and
deletes/re-maps A's work (possibly with less precision or other things
that A doesn't like). A, who intended to stay with OSM but was just
playing a little game of stubbornness and protest, is infuriated ("how
could you throw away my super precise mapping!"), and B has wasted his
time.
If that is your attitude towards the license change
I was describing the attitude of other people, and trying to make the
point that we need to send them a clear message.
If the object of the
game is to change the license regardless of anything,
At this point in time it is very likely that the license change will go
through.
then just change
it already.
I think the time before the actual switch (i.e. before phase 5) should
be used to pre-emptively remap everything that has not been relicensed,
so that we have a smooth transition instead of having to endure empty
spots on the map. Nobody gains if we do this in haste.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm wrote: > John Smith wrote: > >> He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data >> > > I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a > questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of > data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no > reason to prefer the former. > Being more accurate (traced from high quality imagery, versus GPS) could be a reason to prefer the former. I'm not certain about how the person in question would take this, but you'd want to be careful not to get into edit wars about this. The original person could quite easily put their more accurate ways back, and copy the names from the newer ones (since they can be CC licensed). Do we want to encourage people to delete perfectly good data because they don't like the licence? -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 10:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some > who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last > minute; As far as I can tell, doing that is the only way to say "I don't like the licence/CTs/process/whatever, but I will re-license my data". Accepting is taking as a vote for liking the new license, and I quite a few people that are going to do it at the last minute for this reason. The group of people who want the new licence and the group of people that will accept the licence isn't quite the same. I for example have had to say "No", because you now have to give an answer to edit, but would almost certainly change that to a Yes at the last minute (subject to figure out how to split incompatible data into it's own account). -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, James Livingston wrote: I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. Being more accurate (traced from high quality imagery, versus GPS) could be a reason to prefer the former. That's correct (that it could be a reason) however I personally could prefer future-proof data over accurate data any time. I'd rather have a road that may be drawn a few meters from where it really is, than a nice and precise road that might be gone tomorrow. I'm not certain about how the person in question would take this, but you'd want to be careful not to get into edit wars about this. The original person could quite easily put their more accurate ways back, and copy the names from the newer ones (since they can be CC licensed). Yes, that is currently the case; however I was trying to think ahead to "phase 4" which we're likely to enter in a few weeks, and in that phase, the person in question would not be able to add anything unless they have agreed to the Contributor Terms. Do we want to encourage people to delete perfectly good data because they don't like the licence? Deleting perfectly good data because we don't like the license is *exactly* what OSMF are going to do when the license change is implemented, only that they will not be able to replace it with other perfectly good data immediately. On the other hand, when users do that *before* it comes to phase 5, they have the chance to replace the data. This seems the preferable option because it allows a smooth and (at least superficially) loss-less transition to phase 5. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Stephan Knauss wrote: > On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing >> mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just >> holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply >> wanted to delay their decision until later. > > These have actively declined the license. What about all these mappers who > can't be reached any more? Anonymous edits (uid=0)? > > I have some recent statistic of a comparably small community. > For Thailand currently 31% of all contributors (that are still visible in > the planet as last author) have not responded. Of these 162 mappers a quite > large number of 41 (25%) has not contributed over the past two years. Quite > likely they won't respond to the email ever. > These edits sum up to 2,18 percent of the total nodes. > > I have the feeling that remapping this data has a lot less potential for a > conflict than remapping data of a somewhat active contributor who recently > declined but may change his mind. > > How to deal with these edits? What to advise in regard to abandoned > accounts? Frederik the great is only interested in remapping Silesia (Schlesien) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great#Warfare and does not care about the data loss, leader loss or anything else. He seems to be almost joyful in his statements about finally getting rid of these pesky and annoying people so he can do what he wants, it always amazes me to read his postings. but seriously, the license team is not concerned about porting the licenses to other jurisdictions, but once you have signed the new contributor terms, they will not ever have to ask you again. This process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing anything for it in return. The quality of the license is poor, the support in the open source community is next to zero, the fragmented nature of the documents is annoying, there are many unanswered questions as well, the missing compatibility with creative commons is a serious roadblock, the way the whole thing is being managed is a disaster. But once enough people have signed away their rights the license can be changed at whim and adjusted so that it will mostly work, and if it does not, tough luck. We, the osm fork team are working on preserving your work and your contributions under the existing license. I personally wish that the leaders of OSM were not so "us against them", they are pushing people out. Osm fork now has the resources to host the tiles and also does not have the bandwidth problems that osm does. The only thing that is missing is a good rendering solution for drawing updates, we are working on new software to do a better tiles at home to render in a distributed fashion. When these things are in place your maps of Thailand will not be lost, your data will be available and the tiles will be usable also going into the future. I wish that OSM was not so monolithic, but there does not seem to be any compassion or understanding for allowing multiple tiles, multiple license or multiple layers in osm proper. There is only one license, one layer (ok two with cycllemap) and only one way, that way seems to be pushed down on everyone. What we really need is the ODBL to be a fork, an experiment that should first work and then be an option, but the decision was made and we cannot do anything about it. With great sadness to I write these words and hope that you will all have the strength and the courage to resist the pressure to give up your rights and demand a fair treatment. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
2011/6/6 Mike Dupont : > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Stephan Knauss > wrote: >> On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Frederik the great is only interested in remapping Silesia > (Schlesien) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great#Warfare I guess you are confusing Frederik the Great with Frederick the Great ;-) > Osm fork now has the resources to host the tiles and also does > not have the bandwidth problems that osm does. I guess that's clear ;-) For the issue of supposed "last minute"-acceptors (mentioned by James Livingston): it would really help to block decliners (i.e. move to the next phase) ASAP to make things more transparent. Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Mike Dupont wrote: but seriously, the license team is not concerned about porting the licenses to other jurisdictions, but once you have signed the new contributor terms, they will not ever have to ask you again. This process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing anything for it in return. Well the "license team" does not *gain* anything from you signing the contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return? Additionally, "giving up all your rights" would probably mean something like the switch to a Public Domain license. We are not doing that. If you sign the Contributor Terms you allow OSMF to use your data in a certain way which is described exactly in those terms, and which is quite different from OSMF being able to do anything they want. Actually it is nothing different that what "the osm fork team" seem to want to do (CC-BY-SA, I believe): once you hand something out under CC-BY-SA you allow people to use it without ever having to ask you again. I challenge you to point out the fundamental difference. The quality of the license is poor, Independent lawyers have said it is the "best share-alike license for databases available". Please point me to an ODbL evaluation, written by a lawyer, that supports your claim. the support in the open source community is next to zero, The support for your chosen license, CC-BY-SA I assume, was next to zero when it was new, too. the fragmented nature of the documents is annoying, Agreed. there are many unanswered questions as well, There are even more unanswered questions about your chosen license as applied to geodate. (Do I have to list all names?) the missing compatibility with creative commons is a serious roadblock, Someone who uses "creative commons" in a sentence like you just did should be disqualified from discussing licensing, at all. Creative Commons sponsors *several* licenses that are incompatible. No license on earth can be compatible to CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA-NC at the same time. From that it follows that every license on earth, including every Creative Commons license, is incompatible to (some license sponsored by) Creative Commons. "serious roadblock" indeed! But once enough people have signed away their rights That's an attempt at demagogy. You are not signing away your rights any more with our Contributor Terms that you are, for example, with CC-BY-SA. the license can be changed at whim The Contributor Terms require a 2/3 majority and a "free and open license". If you truly believe that the word "at whim" is a correct desription for that, consult a dictionary. and adjusted so that it will mostly work, and if it does not, tough luck. As you probably know, most current Creative Commons licenses have an automatic upgrade path that allows them to be "adjusted". I think this is a good thing and I don't believe one should critisize the authors of a license for allowing that. We, the osm fork team are working on preserving your work and your contributions under the existing license. There is doubt whether the existing license is suitable to "preserve" the work. I personally wish that the leaders of OSM were not so "us against them", You mean "us against we, the osm fork team"? Osm fork now has the resources to host the tiles ... thanks to the good people at archive.org, I believe. Why not say so, there's no shame in that. Do archive.org know that they are hosting a fork of OSM? and also does not have the bandwidth problems that osm does. We should be lucky that not everyone who sees a bandwidth problem starts a fork, huh? The only thing that is missing is a good rendering solution for drawing updates, we are working on new software to do a better tiles at home to render in a distributed fashion. That's interesting to hear. When these things are in place your maps of Thailand will not be lost, your data will be available and the tiles will be usable also going into the future. Of the 50 top contributors in Thailand, 39 have agreed to the Contributor Terms and ODbL and 1 has said no; 10 are yet undecided. It doesn't look as if there will be any map problems in Thailand. I wish that OSM was not so monolithic, but there does not seem to be any compassion or understanding for allowing multiple tiles, multiple license or multiple layers in osm proper. What's the difference between "multiple tiles" and "multiple layers"? We do still have the Osmarender layer, and last thing I heard was Strategic Working Group actively looking for new tile sources to be considered for the main page. Having said that, OSM is much more than www.openstreetmap.org. With great sadness to I write these words And also with great confusion, it seems, since at least half of it was based on false assumptions. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:14:29 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Mike Dupont wrote: but seriously, the license team is not concerned about porting the licenses to other jurisdictions, but once you have signed the new contributor terms, they will not ever have to ask you again. This process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing anything for it in return. Well the "license team" does not *gain* anything from you signing the contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return? The license team is part of OSMF and OSMF does gain a lot in signing the contributor terms. It gains the right to exploit the data in the database. The Contributor Terms require a 2/3 majority and a "free and open license". If you truly believe that the word "at whim" is a correct desription for that, consult a dictionary. Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 06/06/11 14:23, Maarten Deen wrote: > > Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Because there is no single rightsholder who could act on such a vote. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: > Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and contributor terms. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Maarten Deen wrote: Well the "license team" does not *gain* anything from you signing the contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return? The license team is part of OSMF and OSMF does gain a lot in signing the contributor terms. It gains the right to exploit the data in the database. Another funny word, "exploit". When I read the Contributor Terms it says that OSMF has the right to license the database under one of currently two licenses, with the option of asking (!) the community to enhance that choice of licenses in the future. I think this is not something that is a lot of fun, or of commerical value, or whatever. It is not a "gain", it is a responsibility that we burden OSMF with. I fail to see what Mike thinks OSMF should do "in return" for that burden. The Contributor Terms require a 2/3 majority and a "free and open license". If you truly believe that the word "at whim" is a correct desription for that, consult a dictionary. Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Because we don't have any contributor terms that would save us from asking the remaining 1/3 after 2/3 have agreed, and thus a 2/3 majority would not be of any use currently. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:40:32 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and contributor terms. But the current action is: "accept or lose the ability to map". That is close to coercion and not a valid base to claim that 2/3's agree to this. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:48:54 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Maarten Deen wrote: Well the "license team" does not *gain* anything from you signing the contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return? The license team is part of OSMF and OSMF does gain a lot in signing the contributor terms. It gains the right to exploit the data in the database. Another funny word, "exploit". When I read the Contributor Terms it says that OSMF has the right to license the database under one of currently two licenses, with the option of asking (!) the community to enhance that choice of licenses in the future. Exploitation does also mean "using something in an unjust and cruel manner". I'm under the impression that that's how you see what I wrote. But exploitation in general is using something. You can for instance exploit a mine. And that perfectly covers the "royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other." OSMF gains the right do do anything with the data as long as it does not breach copyright etc. Certainly there is a gain there. It gains the right to exploit the data. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 06/06/11 14:52, Maarten Deen wrote: > > But the current action is: "accept or lose the ability to map". That is > close to coercion and not a valid base to claim that 2/3's agree to this. It is not anywhere near coercion. OSM is not the state, and you can map wherever else you like. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Maarten Deen wrote: OSMF gains the right do do anything with the data as long as it does not breach copyright etc. Certainly there is a gain there. It gains the right to exploit the data. But can OSMF exploit the data more than anybody else? The contributor terms say "Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, blah blah blah". And section 3 says "OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ..." In my eyes this means that OSMF can basically only do what everyone else can do too. The one exception might be that OSMF choses the license under which data is published (from the list under "one of the following..."), so everyone else can *only* use the data under that license; whereas OSMF could always use the data under *any* of the named licenses. But I consider this a really minor and un-important difference, and if that difference is a genuine concern of yours (and by extension, Mike Dupont's) then I think that could be remedied without causing too much harm. Oh, and the other exception might be that OSMF can sue others for abuse on your behalf. But again - is that a problem? Would you rather have the sentence about suing for copyright violation removed from the CT, would that be better? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Richard Weait wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> > wrote: >> Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? > > Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and > contributor terms. > It is kind of ironic that people who use the "accept the CT question" to "vote on the transition to ODBL" get told that this is not a vote if they think ODBL is the correct licence for OSM but that they should only indicate if they will accept that their personal contributions can be used under the CT or even get told that they are "poisonous people" for "withdrawing their old data" rather than just accepting and walking away from OSM if they don't agree with the licence, to later hear the argument that "X percent were in favor of the new license so there you have your majority vote". These two questions are very different! 1) "Can and do you agree to relicence your personal contributions under the new CT, irrespective of what your own opinion is of what the best license is for OpenStreetMap" 2) "Do you think moving from CC-BY-SA to ODBL is in the best interest of OpenStreetMap as a whole, independent of if you can accept the CT for your personal contributions so far" These questions could and should have been kept separate and there is no technical reasons, why the 2/3 vote can not be applied to the current transition from CC-BY-SA to ODBL after people have agreed to the CT. But I am repeating my self... Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6447563.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Kai Krueger wrote: > It is kind of ironic that people who use the "accept the CT question" to > "vote on the transition to ODBL" get told that this is not a vote if they > think ODBL is the correct licence for OSM but that they should only indicate > if they will accept that their personal contributions can be used under the > CT or even get told that they are "poisonous people" for "withdrawing their > old data" rather than just accepting and walking away from OSM if they don't > agree with the licence, to later hear the argument that "X percent were in > favor of the new license so there you have your majority vote". I feel that the problem here is that the board has serious time pressure or lack of patience, they just dont *want* to take the time discuss this with me or you, We are just problems for them, obstacles to overcome, enemies of progress. Or worse, we are the foot people who are not elected and should just shut up and accept the decisions made for us. Or the feeling that I get, we (or is it just me?) are just idiots whose opinions, concerns and issues do not matter. I don't see why it is a problem to discuss this for years if we need to to get all the points right, what is the hurry here? We are all interested in making OSM better, I think we can agree on that. I would like to have an intelligent discussion and be convinced that the board is doing the right thing, I would like to understand all the issues and see why these steps are being taken. Being told I am an idiot and there are these vague problems does not help, we need to have a detail FAQ that addresses each issue point by point. We need to summarize the countless emails and crystallize them into something usable. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Am 05.06.2011 02:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm: ... because that's when they intend to systematically delete > and re-map everything that has not yet been relicensed. There are a lot of open questions that have to be solved BEFORE any official licence change or "private" cleaning up the data ... - version history is incomplete: ways, which were splitted or joined, have lost parts of version history including mappers, that don't acceppted - what's about deleted objects? If a mapper, who don't accepted, for example has deleted a POI and mapped a building with similar tags, the building has to be deleted, but also the POI has to be restored?! So changesets may have to be verified for such things ... - Might be that it is not necessary to delete trivial edits (Might be "trivial" depends on the country of the edit ...) - ... and surely a mapper may decide to accept lately ... - ... So a "private clean-up" befor this questions are solved might - delete objects where it is not necessary (trivial, change decision) - not delete objects where it is necessary (splitted/joined ways which where partially mapped of non accepting mappers) - violate copyright, if he "copy" the old object - ... Heiko ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
